Reading Comprehension

PT149 · S2 · P2 · Q9 The Multiverse

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

In a typical Hollywood action movie, the hero skirts death to complete a mission.

Topic

The "fine-tuning" of the laws of physics in our universe, the idea of the multiverse, and recent challenges to how exceptional our universe may really be.

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

Although many scientists argue that our universe appears "finely tuned" to allow life and see this as evidence for the existence of a multiverse, new research (like that done by the author) suggests that alternative sets of physical laws could also allow complex structures and possibly life, so the fine-tuning argument might be overstated. (The Most Valuable Sentence: This is found at the end of the fifth paragraph.)

P1: Action Movie Analogy

The author starts by comparing the survival of a movie hero against all odds to how finely balanced the conditions in our universe seem to be—lots of things could have gone wrong, but they didn't.

P2: Fine-Tuning Problem in Physics

Just like in the movie, our universe seems unlikely; a tiny change in physical laws could have prevented life from existing. This mysterious "fine-tuning" makes the existence of our universe seem improbable.

P3: The Multiverse Hypothesis

Some cosmologists try to solve this improbability by proposing there are lots of universes (a "multiverse"), each with different laws, making it less surprising that at least one (ours) turned out just right.

9.

The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the conventional way in which scientists investigate the apparent fine tuning of physical laws?

  1. It focuses on looking for

    Wrong Objection

    The author's objection is just "why are you only changing one variable at a time?" According to this, the author's objection is, "Why are you analyzing these outcomes of your unfurling alternate universe? They're irrelevant to the issue at hand!"

    2% picked this

  2. It is too unfocused to

    Opposite, if anything

    Since the author's objection is, "Why are you lame-o's only changing one variable at a time. This is why you aren't able to come up with viable alternate universes", if anything she would say that they are too focused (on one variable at a time) to get useful results.

    1% picked this

  3. It has been conducted without

    Opposite, if anything

    The conventional way is changing one variable at a time, leaving everything else unchanged. That's actually a rigorous process. That allows them to know exactly what caused any observed difference they see in the alternate universe. A lack of rigor would be changing a few variables at once randomly, and then seeing differences but not knowing exactly how to attribute them to each altered variables.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    Its methodology results in an

    Why this is right

    The author's objection is, "Why are you guys only changing one variable at a time. This is why you aren't able to come up with viable alternate universes". It's methodology of only changing one variable at a time results in an overly restricted set of alternate universes (ones that can't support life). This created the false impression that our universe is incredibly rare and fine tuned. Our author is saying there are plenty of viable outcomes, if you just change a few variables at the same time. We anticipated the idea of "you're constraining yourself too much", and that matches well with "overly restricted".

    Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    84% picked this

  5. It will eventually produce a

    Opposite

    This answer sounds like the author is encouraged and optimistic about the conventional way, but our author thinks the conventional way was bad. She thinks that because they were (foolishly) only allowing themselves to change one variable at a time, they were finding it (unnecessarily) difficult to identify an alternative set of laws that could be compatible with life.

    12% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free